Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Need an admin to do a history merge

Manuel C. Herrera and Manuel c herrera are the same person, but the author must not have known about redirects. Can an admin merge the histories into the proper punctuation version please. Disclaimer, article has nothing to-do with Oregon. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Transportation stuff

I've found a number of sources that could bring substantial improvements to a little collection of articles -- wanted to make a quick note here.

Sources:

Wikipedia articles:

I welcome any help in this of course! -Pete (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Gravity Falls

Cartoon set in Oregon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess my question is: is there an article for TV shows set in Oregon, or Media in Oregon, or Oregon as a fictional location, or some such? If not, it might be a fun read/write situation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Closest thing I'm aware of is List of fiction set in Oregon, which is probably worth editing to include this cartoon. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In the process of updating Downtown Portland

with details from a new reference, I noticed a part of Portland (Central Eastside Industrial District) that already had been mentioned in several articles you are interested in, but one that didn't have an article about it yet. I turned all the existing mentions into red links, added one to Downtown Portland due to the new reference, and then went looking around your wikiproject for a place to add Central Eastside Industrial District on your list of requested articles. I didn't find such a list so I am making the suggestion here. 72.244.200.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good observation, yes, I agree this is a "neighborhood" (for lack of a better word) that easily clears the notability standard, and has been covered a good deal over the years. Thanks for pointing it out! -Pete (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Added to redlinks list. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Marshall J. Kinney Cannery

I can't find an image on Commons or Flickr, so do me a favor and take a snapshot next time you are in Astoria! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 02:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I might be going to Astoria sometime soon. It's a nice little city. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Do stop in at the hemp store (no, not head shop). Say hello to Michael. tedder (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

dibs on architect articles

This is a courtesy notice. If anyone wants dibs on creating articles for Oregon architects or builders or engineers who created a number of works later listed on the NRHP, and hence fairly clearly Wikipedia-notable, please say so. Specifically feel free to review a list of articles in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Architects2009a, and indicate there if you recognize an Oregon person and want to plan to start a given article. State is not indicated, but Clarence L. Smith (new article), Jamieson Parker / Jamieson K. Parker (currently a red-link) are two architects that I now identify as Oregon ones, once I start into it, by the way. When I start articles like these, I usually try to start or add to articles for all the linked NRHP-listed places, to make the links and to locate and develop mutually supporting sources. Help editing those articles and/or their linked NRHP articles would be welcomed. --doncram 13:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh. It appears that we have a TriMet Public Information Officer making edits under a prohibited user name (TriMetPIO). I have no experience with this (only just enough to recognize it's a problem), so will someone who does have experience please enlighten the new editor? (and, if an admin., take whatever other action is considered appropriate). Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Roses in Portland

Jsayre nominated the Roses in Portland article, one we were working on a while back, for GA status. I had planned to nominate the article once I was able to conduct a bit more research, but I am glad Jsayre is getting the ball rolling on the process. I am hoping other project members might be able to take a look at the article and see if any additional rose-related events, projects, facts, etc. should be incorporated.

Something that came to mind are the painted roses on the sides of buildings seen throughout the city. I don't know the name of this "project" but I believe I have seen roses on or near the Tiffany Center, along I-84, etc. Sure these are relevant to the topic.

Other thoughts? I imagine there are other businesses and city services that allude to the rose. Please feel free to help expand the article before and during the GA process. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

--Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You got the two Rose Gardens (traveler's tip: make sure your taxi driver knows at which one you are waiting to be picked up for hours on a cold, rainy, dark night) in the article already; how about the various rose-inspired sports teams: Portland Rosebuds, Rose City Rollers, Portland Roses, and Rose City Wildcats? --Esprqii (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Most definitely. Right now only the Portland Roses are mentioned, and in only one sentence. Not that we need to list each business name separately, but it would be nice to find a source or directory which lists (what I assume is) many local businesses that start with "Rose City", such as Rose City Moving Company; this would serve as a citation for a sentence which reads something like "Many local businesses have incorporated "Rose City" into the title of their company. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I added a link about the rose murals at Talk:Roses in Portland. For the sake of working from a single discussion, please direct other comments/suggestions on the article's talk page (my bad!)... --Another Believer (Talk) 23:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone interested in helping a bit with the GA review? Jsayre64 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: The article is now waiting for a second opinion on the GA review. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I encouraged project members to keep an eye on Talk:Roses in Portland/GA2 (the second GA review page) to help address concerns. Any feedback or comments would be helpful, especially from Portlanders with any knowledge on the subject. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Japanese dock on Oregon Coast

Am I crazy to think there is enough press coverage to cover the Japanese dock that washed up on Oregon's coast as a result of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami? Nevermind the earthquake/tsunami's impact across the entire Oregon coastline or even the western United States, I'm referring specifically to the dock. I think I'm crazy. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

--Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Wild

I am putting together a stub for Oregon Wild as it is appearing on the redlink page, and is probably something I can do from my home in Alaska. (User:Name Omitted/Oregon Wild) Since I don't have the local knowledge of Oregon environmental politics, please let me know if there are other organizations I should look up for competing views on Oregon Wild. Name Omitted (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're taking this on. I was thinking of starting a stub myself but then realized I might run into some problems with conflict of interest. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This is all I know about Oregon Wild. Thanks for starting a new article! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Done for now, I need to get to work. I have to say, I am stunned by the lack of "negative" press gained by these people. Either they are very good at controlling their image, or I am doing very poorly at searching. Feel free to amend as you see fit, I will digest more information and get back to it latter. Name Omitted (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Woodstock Library

If anyone has an image of the former Woodstock Library building, or has a hankering to conduct a quick copyedit of this article, any assistance would be appreciated. Right now the article is constructed from only two primary sources, so much work remains, but this makes the copyedit process quite easy. Paraphrasing is my primary concern--it can be difficult to re-word short, historical summaries. I will be conducting research to find as many additional sources as possible, so this should help to break up the similar text a bit. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's say this article was inspired by Wikipedia Loves Libraries! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Time for GAN. Let me know if you identify any concerns needing to be addressed. I have more images to upload to Commons soon. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

College logos

A nice collection of school logos/seals is here to download for FUR usage, as sometimes they are hard to get from the schools' websites. I think we have most, but I used it for the one for Mt. Angel Seminary. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012

I started a discussion above re: Wiki Loves Monuments (see the Multnomah County Library section), but figured I should start an independent thread. Whether or not the Library is interested in offering a meeting space (no pressure, honestly!), I think we should make this contest a priority for WikiProject Oregon members during the month of September. Some cities are organizing photo hunts, group treks, competitions, etc., but even if Portland does not organize an official event we can still photograph and upload images individually or in small groups.

The purpose of the competition is to photograph sites on the National Register of Historic Places. This year marks the first in which the United States is participating in the WLM contest, and I'd love to see some outstanding contributions made by Oregonians. Let's show off this beautiful state and the history it holds!

For details about the competition, see the following links:

To view lists of sites on the Register by county, visit National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon. Photographs can be taken at any time (I am already starting my collection), but images cannot be uploaded to Commons until September. You might be surprised which sites on the Register are right around the corner from where you live, work, play, etc. Feel free to use this section to discuss this year's Wiki Loves Monuments contest. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Logging in Oregon

Some new and newly improved articles relating to logging in Oregon:

  1. Donkey puncher
  2. Choker setter
  3. Gyppo logger

Feel free to help out with further improving them and research from secondary sources, and/or discussion on the articles talk pages. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Name Showing Due To Historical Photo

Hello-

I noticed on the Hotel deLuxe page the photo of the hotel is displaying as "Mallory Hotel". I believe it is due to the photo file name being "Mallory Hotel" - what's the best way to update the file name on the photo, so the older hotel name doesn't display? Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1768Now (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for commenting. Mallory Hotel is the former name of the establishment; this is also the name which appears on the National Register of Historic Places. NRHP titles are usually displayed in the NRHP infobox, but common names are preferable for article titles. This explains why the article name differs from the infobox heading. Image titles are up to the photographer for the most part, though I tend to use current names to reflect the time in which the photo was taken. Does this answer your question? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
From my experience photo names can have a negative effect on the way a property is listed in other places on the web. Therefore it seems to me like changing the file name would be a favor to the deLuxe to help it break any association with the Mallory. What would be the best way to replace the filename, simply uploading a new photo? I'm open to any ideas you guys may have...--Maggletooth (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You can request a new file name if you go to the file description page and add {{rename}} with a reason in one of the template parameters. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but no! There are two things wrong with this discussion (except not with Another Believer's reply). First, the file should not be renamed, and such a request at Commons would likely be rejected, as not having a valid reason (see file renaming at Commons). A change of name of a building is rarely considered sufficient reason to rename a file; the caption is sufficient to handle that on article pages. And the building's 'official' historic (NRHP) name is still the Mallory Hotel.
Second, to be clear, the perceived "incorrect" heading for the article's infobox was not caused by the file name, so renaming the file wouldn't change it anyway. The infobox heading of "Mallory Hotel" was caused by my edit of July 31, where I explained in the edit summary that WP:NRHPMOS (the manual of style used by WikiProject National Register of Historic Places) specifies that NRHP infoboxes should normally show the name of the building as listed on the NRHP. I was careful to revise the caption below the photo to mention the hotel's current name. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, and the building which currently is the Hotel deLuxe has a long history – more than 90 years – as the Mallory Hotel, which history is arguably much more notable (and thereby worth including in an encyclopedia) than the so-far-brief history of the Hotel deLuxe. (The fact that no one has added that history to the article yet does not change that.) It might be possible to change to two-section infobox, with the NRHP infobox embedded in the lower portion of another infobox, but I don't know which infobox would be appropriate, because Template:Infobox hotel is in the process of being deleted and thus should not be used. SJ Morg (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Well stated, SJ. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Meetup restructure

Hi, all. I am currently working on a restructure of the Portland meetup page, category, subpages, etc. I simply find the current method too unorganized. First of all, I created the category Category:Wikipedia meetups in Portland, Oregon, a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia meetups in the United States. Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland serves as the main meetup page for Portland. I propose this page remain somewhat concrete, with standardized information about annual Portland meetups (Wiki Loves Libraries, Wikipedia Takes Portland, Wikipedia Day, etc.), a history of meetups and relevant internal or external links. From this page, I think we should link to general (but Portland-specific) pages for Wiki Loves Libraries, Wikipedia Takes Portland, etc., which will provide general overviews about these annual events. See below for examples:

For Wikipedia Takes Portland:

Similarly, for Wiki Loves Libraries:

This way we have a clear record of each event. Each event page will offer venue, location, time details, project goals, organizers, participants lists, reports and other relevant information.

I also propose we have a single general Participants list linked from the main page. This would display a list of people generally interested in meetups and other wiki-related events, which we can use to disseminate information about upcoming events. People wanting to sign up for specific events will do so on the appropriate event pages, rather than recycling the same list over and over.

Within Category:Wikipedia meetups in Portland, Oregon I created the subcategory Category:Wikipedia Takes Portland, which will contain pages specifically related to this annual event. We could have similar subcategories for other annual events. These categories might only contain a couple pages now, but think 5 to 10 years from now... the category will contain a chronological history specific for each annual event. In addition to event-specific subcategories, the general "Wikipedia meetups in Portland, Oregon" category will contain one-off edit-athon pages and other events, such as Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/April 2012 which I created by moving content from the main Portland meetup page.

I would be interested in receiving feedback from other WikiProject Oregon members. I really hope this restructure will be helpful for both organizational and archival purposes. Right now the main Portland meetup page displays only a few events in the History section, one from 2006 and two from 2012. I will try to do digging for historical information but leads or assistance would be appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@AB: Thanks for organizing this. I poked around and it looks great.
The only suggestion I have is a way to reduce a sense of feeling lost in the hierarchy. How about a nav template on all these articles which replicates the hierarchical list you have above? —EncMstr (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Just to be clear, I have barely started editing the main Meetup page. I have a concept in mind which I believe will present information in a very clear manner, but I wanted to bring this restructure up for discussion before I made any major changes and to receive any feedback or suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

EncMster, feel free to take a look at the page again. I have expanded the page to include summaries of the annual events organized by Wikipedians in the United States. The idea is to use the main Portland meetup page to link to Portland-specific campaigns. Right now there is some redundant information on the main page and the Portland-specific pages, but keep in mind some of these campaign are only one or two years old. Even just five years from now, the Portland Wiknic page could look very different, with an overview and history of the event in Portland with links to year-specific pages. As meetups are organized in the future, we should create event-specific pages and populate the category Category:Wikipedia meetups in Portland, Oregon.

Though Wikipedians in Portland are not part of an official Wikimedia chapter, I think we need to start creating a "portfolio", or an archive of records and activities. This is not possible by recycling pages. Pages for events can record lists of participants, minutes, notes, budget details, discussions, images, galleries, etc. I welcome any and all discussion about this expansion of the Portland meetup page. Also, I could really use some help if anyone recalls dates of past meetups so that I can go trolling and hopefully expand the "History" section. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Columbus Day Storm 50th Anniversary

The 50th anniversary of the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 is coming up in a few weeks. I was thinking it's time for an old-fashioned WP:ORE collaboration. It's probably too late to get this up to featured article status and on the front page, but it shouldn't be too hard to get to at least Good Article status. Who's with me? In the words of our state's finest college graduate, Let's doooooo iiiiittt!! --Esprqii (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool! I would definitely put in a request to the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (and to User:Juliancolton in particular, see here for FA list) for additional support. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I put a note at the WP:NTROP talk page (there is a non-tropical group as well that the CDS is technically part of). Looks like it was already on their radar earlier in the month, though I'm not sure if it was coincidence that the big anniversary is coming up. --Esprqii (talk)
Thanks for making this a collaboration, Esprqii! As you may have seen, I'm working on tidying the article formatting (especially all those conversion templates). But the article isn't going to pass GA without more references. I'll go see if I can track some down… Jsayre64 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Historic Photos

Would the historic photos at http://apps.beavertonoregon.gov/HistoricPhotos/ be of use? If so, I could write a batch script to upload them. (I previously did the bot upload for the State Archives.Smallman12q (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Can I add some "yesses" too? That would be fantastic! -Pete (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot about this after a day...nobody "talk-backed" on my userpage. I'll file a BRFA on the commons tmrw. My question is which licensing template to use? Should I use {{PD-because}}? As in

or {{PD-Pre1978}}

Any suggestions?Smallman12q (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we know that the pictures were published in the U.S. before 1978? If not, the first justification might be more appropriate. Besides, the first reason is the same justification posted on the City's website. Thanks so much for your work uploading these images! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've filed the request at Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 4. Feel free to comment.Smallman12q (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Great! Looking forward to the migration. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The photos are uploaded at Commons:Category:Beaverton, Oregon Historical Photo Gallery. CheersSmallman12q (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks for your work on this project! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

PortlandWiki

In my expansion of the Portland meetup page, I hope I maintained accuracy of the PortlandWiki meetups. Are there really PortlandWiki meetups every Monday and every Wednesday? I want to make correct information available on the meetup page while differentiating Wikipedia meetups vs. PortlandWiki meetups. Please let me know if any information presented needs to be corrected or updated. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you've gotten a more authoritative answer by now -- but I believe that is actually out of date. Last I knew, they were canceling the regular meetings at least temporarily. Ask User:Davydog or User:Kotra or look on portlandwiki.org itself for a more reliable answer, though! And thanks for updating the page. -Pete (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Portland

The date for Wikipedia Takes Portland has been moved to this upcoming Saturday, September 22nd at noon at Pioneer Courthouse Square (I propose near the "Umbrella Man"). I do not know of any plans at this point beyond meeting at noon (I had not assisted with developing plans further since I was unable to attend the previously scheduled event due to a work conflict). I am not sure how much interest can be generated in just a few days, especially given the late date change notice, but I am open to ideas if project members are interested in participating. Otherwise, I will plan on printing some lists of NRHP sites for myself and others and simply upload the images from home as part of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition.

Feel free to RSVP or continue discussion here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Portland/2012. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wish I could be there -- glad to see this coming together, good luck! -Pete (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone plans to come tomorrow, I would recommend printing lists of sites on the NRHP before coming, especially for Northwest Portland and Southwest Portland if you intend to stay within the downtown and Pearl areas. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia event at Multnomah County Library

Looks like this event, perhaps, has not been announced here?

http://events.multcolib.org/event/wikipedia-loves-libraries-multnomah-county-edit-athon

-Pete (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a work event scheduled that weekend, but I will do everything in my power to be there! Pete, are you organizing this event? Let me know if you require assistance... I was just thinking about having an edit-athon at the Central Library! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I really don't know anything about it beyond what I posted..User:Pharos alerted me, and I think even he only stumbled on it with a Google search. But he's a good rabble-rouser at pointing people at each other, so I imagine he will unearth the organizers before long! -Pete (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Oregonians from Multnomah County Library – We are delighted that you ferreted out news about our upcoming Wikipedia Loves Libraries event on October 27 because we were wondering how to find you! Apologies if I’m not contacting you correctly, since I am not a registered editor of Wikipedia. I see we are already listed in the Wikipedia Loves Libraries calendar of events! Thanks! We would love your help and guidance at this event. While we have a vision, it is extremely casual and can be changed if you think it would work better another way. We were inspired by the Edit-athons at NYPL’s Performing Arts Library and the one held at the British Library, although we are starting off somewhat smaller in scale. We plan on reserving a room in the Central Library, set it up with laptops for research and writing, have available reference staff to help folks get started with using library resources, and set everyone loose on Wikipedia stubs that deal with any topic relating to Multnomah County (not the government entity, but any subject that fits under the geographic umbrella that is the County). If Portland’s Wikipedians could be there to conduct their own research and/or help others get registered and researching, we would consider it a successful day. If it goes well and there is enough interest, we may have these on a semi-regular basis. Several Librarians at Central are working on this event (all @multcolib.org): me - Lee Catalano (leec), Jon Chess (jonch), Emiy-Jane Dawson (ejd) and Phoebe Wayne (phoebew). We would love to hear from you, either through this forum or via email. Again, not sure how to sign and date this (does it do it automatically?): Lee Catalano, 16:30, 21 August 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.135.42 (talk)

(And part of my ignorance is not knowing how to format the above properly so it is a little more readable!). Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.135.42 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lee. I have marked my calendar (October 27, 2012 14:00–16:00) to attend and help however I can. Certainly you have given enough advance notice! You can learn a little about me by looking at my user page and my contributions (editing history). I expect several others will attend too, so there will be plenty of representation who can knowledgeably help with and answer questions about most facets of Wikipedia:
  • mechanics of editing
  • structuring an article
  • Wikipedia policies and guidelines
  • Wikipedia administrators
  • wikiquette, and
  • successful interaction with other editors
Maybe you could give a little more detail about the goals and organization of the event? —EncMstr (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lee. Thanks for stopping by! Like EncMstr, you can view my profile for a bit of detail about my interests. I will try my hardest to attend this event and help in any way possible--I will be sure to post a note as soon as I know whether or not my work event will conflict. By the way, you can sign your posts by typing "~~~~" after your comment. Please continue stopping by and participating in this discussion, among others! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing! Wiki Loves Monuments, the international photo contest, takes place in September. I wonder if the Central Library might be interested in hosting an event one weekend in the month, or at least providing a space for Wikipedians to meet and organize a photo trek? The purpose is to photographs sites on the National Register of Historic Places, lists of which can be found here on Wikipedia, then upload them to Commons for use on Wikipedia. Details can be found here: http://wikilovesmonuments.us/ There are TONS of sites on the Register in downtown Portland, which makes the Central Library an ideal location to meet. If you'd like to learn more information or discuss the possibility of having the library provide a meeting space, feel free to leave a note on my talk page or shoot me an e-mail (you can find my address on my user page). Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! It's Lee again. I'd like to address EncMstr's questions about goals and organization. Our goal is two-fold: We'd like to reduce the number of Mult.Co.-related article stubs and we'd like to introduce/remind Wikipedia contributors the breadth and depth of our local information. Organization will be extremely informal. We'll have laptops set up in the 3rd floor Map Room, some books, perhaps a couple of how-to-get-started guides, along with you and us (librarians) available to help folks get started -- either in making Wikipedia entries or in research.

The staff planning this event have scheduled a meeting on October 2 at 3 p.m. at Central Library. We would welcome your attendance ... or we'd be happy to find another time that works better for you, if you think we should meet in person. Please email me at leec [at] multcolib.org and let me know. Thanks again for your warm welcome. 192.220.135.42 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lee. I jotted the October 2nd meeting down on my calendar. Please let me know if the time changes. I'd be happy to attend, assist with planning, etc. I recently created stubs for each of the Multnomah County Library branches and fully expanded the Woodstock Library article (which should provide a great example for other branch library articles once it has finished going through the "Good article" nomination process). Looking forward to meeting in person (BTW, I will respond to your other e-mail ASAP). --Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I, too, added the date+time to my calendar. Where in the library will it be? —EncMstr (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

MCL is very excited to have you join us at our work session on October 2. We'll be meeting on the 5th floor, so just stop at the Welcome Desk (first desk on the right as you come in) and we'll escort you up there. Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.132.99 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I created the following page specifically for this event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiki Loves Libraries/2012. Please add your name to the list of participants if you are interested in attending. Lee, looking forward to meeting you in the near future. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me re-extend an invitation for you to join our planning meeting this Tuesday, October 2 at 3 pm at Central Library. I know that Another Believer plans to come. If anyone else is, please email me [leec@multcolib.org] so I'll know to wait for you. Look for me at the Welcome Desk (first desk on the right as you come in). Here's an informal agenda: Review the stubs that we've been collecting, Go over a resource guide in light of the stubs and add/subtract some topics/items Share some ideas about how to increase participation, Parcel out some jobs for the event day. I'd be happy to show you the space where we'll be on Oct. 27 as well. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.129.146 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Today, Another Believer and I attended a planning meeting for this event; three library personnel were in attendance: Lee, Phoebe, and John.
In summary, they recently held an Oregon Encyclopedia-related event which sought to involve the public in gathering sources (or similar), but was in the format of a multi-hour lecture with the audience simply leaving when it ended. Result: Zero apparent involvement. They want to do better on the Wikipedia event.
The library staff are in unfamiliar territory and open to suggestion. They have done some good preparatory work:
  • Identified 150-200 Multnomah County-related stub articles which WP:ORE assessed as high priority to use as suggested articles for expansion. AB will be posting the list (perhaps at Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiki Loves Libraries/2012).
  • Collected ideas for promoting the event: library event calendar, prepare a flier, notify associated librarians throughout their system, skywriting, etc. (Just kidding about skywriting, though if anyone has a connection, it sure would be appreciated.) They are open to additional ideas for attracting and involving more editors, from newbies to experienced Wikipedians.
  • Plan to reserve the "map room", which has two large tables with electric outlets and can comfortably seat perhaps up to 30 people with laptop computers. They will provide a half dozen or so laptops. Food and talking are allowed in this area!
  • They have set expectations nice and low: success would be for a few editors to show up and improve a few articles. Especially if library's reference materials are called for (as sources). I gather that librarians will be present to help find sources.
  • This event is intended as a first step (if all goes well) at initiating regular events. Learning from what happens is anticipated.
They will be monitoring this discussion, as well as doing (at least) a fishbowl discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Portland/Wiki Loves Libraries/2012, hopefully with new user accounts. Please chime in with suggestions and comments. —EncMstr (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

BLM Photo Library Upload

The Bureau of Land Management has a Photo Library here which has 10k Oregon images. Some of the images have descriptions, others don't. Many of the images have good resolution. The license states

"Can I reprint images from this web site? Many of the images in this web site are considered public domain. There is no cost to download public domain images and they may be used in your print and electronic publications without further authorization from the BLM. "

Can the images be used on the wiki and would they be of use? If so, I could write a batch script to upload them.Smallman12q (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The BLM is a US federal agency, so by US law, their works are in the public domain; see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Just stick the Template:PD-USGov license on it and you should be good to go! --Esprqii (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? Why does the BLM page say "many .... are public domain", rather than "all"? The fact that an image is on the BLM's website doesn't necessarily mean that a BLM employee produced it (and that it is therefore a work of the federal government), does it? There might be some image pages that indicate someone else as copyright holder. I'm not going to take time to check, but I'm just saying proceed with caution. Again, why does the site's page say only that "many" (not all) of the images are public domain? SJ Morg (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the "many"...could someone contact them to verify that the images are public domain? Also, there are some nice maps in the brochures here and here, but they are the work of the Oregon field office...does that fall under pd?Smallman12q (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The Oregon field office is still part of the federal government, so those are public domain. Their copyright policy page says that "Most of our content posted is in the public domain which does not require copyright or other intellectual property notices. In those cases where we do use such information, we will clearly indicate the limited use of the content along with the terms of use on the page displaying or accessing such content. As examples, the content may be in the form of documents, graphics, or audio files." To me, that seems to indicate that photos are all OK, but maybe some of their maps or other graphics should be used with care. --Esprqii (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Museums and the Web 2013

Any Wikipedians in Oregon planning to attend the Museums and the Web 2013 conference here in Portland? See this link for details: http://www.museumsandtheweb.com. Proposals are due September 30th. Interested in attending? Interested in presenting? This event was just brought to my attention so I/we have to think about this fast! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone double check this?

It looks like there were some edits to Jeff Merkley that may have been less than great. I don't know the subject very well so I'm hesitant to just revert or dive in. Steven Walling • talk 21:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears someone messed with the section titles, adding a bit of their supposed POV and making (probably in good faith) some unneeded capitalizations. The article should look better now. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. :) Steven Walling • talk 22:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Country Bill's

I never went, but here is an article for the sake of historic preservation. If anyone has time for a copyedit, assistance would be much appreciated before GA nomination (don't worry, the article is short!). Also, is someone able to help with the Portland Tribune/The Bee articles? I see from Google and archive searches there are a few relevant articles, but I cannot actually read them online (I see the section about re: Tribune articles, but I cannot access the original URLs in the first place to update with the new domain). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Do any project members know how to access these Tribune/Bee articles? I am surprised to find URLs still do not work even when attempting to search the archives at thetribonline.net. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried googling:
"Country Bill's" site:portlandtribune.com
and I got:
But it looks like you already have that one. The other results are just useless passing mentions (i.e., mentioning that an interview took place there). What other articles do you think are out there? Have you tried archive.org? -Pete (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The 'interview took place there' article was one I was referring to, but I was uncertain of the context since I could not access the article. I will try archive.org. I have nominated the article for Good status since (for now at least) I cannot find any additional information to include in the article. I am happy to continue expansion if additional sources are discovered. Thanks, Pete! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am not familiar with location map templates and/or adding coordinates to articles. If anyone wishes to help before or during the Good article nomination process I'd be much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Coords and pushpin map added. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much, FT! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Springfield, Oregon

 Done Libelous edits removed —EncMstr (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin please delete most of the edits from today? Looks like some middle schoolers were having some fun. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget... Wikipedia Loves Libraries!

<font=3>WIKIPEDIA LOVES LIBRARIES: MULTNOMAH COUNTY EDIT-ATHON!
You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, an edit-athon hosted by Multnomah County Library for the purpose of improving stubs relating to Multnomah County. The event will take place on Saturday, October 27, 2012 from 2:00-4:00pm at the Central Library in downtown Portland. You can view details about this Wiki Loves Libraries event here. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE.
Click here for more information about meetups in Portland!

We should all be thankful for how hard MCL staff have worked to host this event for Wikipedians and the community in general. Hope you can attend! The more, the merrier... --Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Need an admin to do a history merge

As some may know, the Yakima Bears relocated to Hillsboro, and today the new name was announced as the Hillsboro Hops. Unfortunately, some overzealous folks moved the Bears page to Hillsboro Hops instead of starting a new page. Someone else then copy and pasted the old Yakima info into a new Yakima Bears page, which f-ups the attribution. So, I need an admin to merge the pre-today history of Hillsboro Hops into the Yakima article and theoretically delete it from the Hops article. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How very regional! (I heard it on OPB this morning as the generic "Hawks".) I haven't done one of these yet but if someone doesn't beat me to it by this evening I can give it a try. Valfontis (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure my hamfisted effort isn't perfect, but it is better. I'm double-checking the history of the Hops article, but let me know if I need to clean up any stray edits. Valfontis (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, in that basically the Hops article was created yesterday. Thank you very much, and good to see you are around a bit more. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Whew, I dodged a bullet there by not checking in for a bit -- the last time AM asked for a history merge, I think I mostly got the job done, but it set off a civil war among my neurons that lasted for weeks… -Pete (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon in The Signpost

WikiProject Oregon is (again) mentioned in this week's edition of The Signpost: check it out! I might also take this opportunity to remind project members that there will be a meetup this Saturday at the Central Library from 2-4pm and that some contributors are interested in establishing a regional chapter... see the links for additional information. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Willamette Week

--Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I usually appreciate Martin's attempts at humor, but his take is only slightly fresher than "Gangnam Style" parodies. The slightest amount of original research (get it??) on his part would have given him a unique angle on Oregon's relationship to Wikipedia. --Esprqii (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Oy. Yeah. I'd have thought this group had earned a bit more respect than that…I used to know WW people, but this Martin guy's new to me. Ah well. Go forth and knock 'em out this weekend -- I really wish I could join you! -Pete (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the WLL meetup talk page, it is unfortunate the article was not more favorable. However, I was glad the event was mentioned and hope the event attracts new contributors. I went ahead and added the press template to the meetup page and talk page for future reference. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oregon state militia

I just spent time improving the article on Lee Moorhouse. He is said (without citation) to have been Assistant Adjunct General of the Oregon State Militia at some point during the last few decades of the 1800s and/or the early 1900s. I also noticed that Category:State Defense Forces of the United States lack an article on Oregon's state defense force, even though the state clearly has such a force. Should Oregon State Militia be a redirect to Oregon National Guard, or should it link to some other article, perhaps one that includes coverage of Oregon's state defense force? Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.172 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For now at least, it looks to me like the proper redirect would be to Oregon Military Department, to which the Oregon National Guard itself redirects. I think you're right that we should have an article on the Oregon State Defense Force and possibly the Oregon National Guard as well--I am not really clear on whether those are actually separate entities. The new article would probably cover the history of the Oregon Militia as well, which grew into one (or both!) of the ONG and the OSDF. It would be great if you could get it started and untangle the differences, if any! --Esprqii (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

History of wiki/pedia in Portland

Hi all, at the urging of User:Another Believer, I started an overview of Portland wiki and Wikipedia activity in the lead section of WP:Meetup/Portland. I hope others will add to this, I'm sure I've forgotten plenty! -Pete (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Music for a Time of War

I encourage project members to review this newly-constructed article as well as its talk page. There are a few more sources needing to be incorporated into the article. Hopefully this will make a great addition to WikiProject Oregon and Wikipedia once completed and reviewed thoroughly. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Library stubs

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albina Library regarding deletion of articles for Multnomah County Library branches. Feel free to contribute to the discussion if you feel inclined. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Or, better yet, if anyone has just a few minutes to expand any of the following articles (perhaps the library you frequent?), any assistance would be much appreciated: Belmont Library, Capitol Hill Library, Fairview-Columbia Library, Gregory Heights Library, Hillsdale Library, Holgate Library, Hollywood Library, Kenton Library, Midland Library, North Portland Library, Northwest Library, Rockwood Library, Sellwood-Moreland Library, St. Johns Library, Troutdale Library. The Woodstock Library article might be a good reference. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I've expanded Belmont a bit. Thanks, Pete, for adding detail/citation to Hollywood. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I stumbled on (the abstract for) an article about the history of the library movement in Oregon -- might be a great source for either the Multnomah County Library article or maybe a new article like libraries in Oregon:

  • Gunselman, Cheryl. Cornelia Marvin and Mary Frances Isom: Leaders of Oregon’s Library Movement. Library Trends 52 (4) Spring 2004: Pioneers in Library and Information Science. Edited by W. Boyd Rayward. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/1699

There's another interesting article about recent history, focusing on managing transition and using MCL as a case study, here:

I've worked a little on Sellwood Library and Northwest Library in addition to Hollywood; Northwest in particular seems notable, as the first new branch in several decades, and serving Portland's densest neighborhood (who knew!). -Pete (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, if someone wants to nomination the expansions for DYK, feel free. Hillsdale is definitely been expanded enough, but today would probably be the last day to nominate it, and I don't have time for the nom and the quid pro quo (if someone who didn't expand it wanted to nominate it, no review is required). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
I'd like to thank all of the contributors who have jumped right in to rescue and expand these articles. These library stubs have become the unofficial collaboration of the week, and WikiProject Oregon is producing great work. New pictures, expanded articles and newly-discovered information for these important institutions to Portland! Thanks again. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Former branches

According to the MCL photostream on Flickr, there are quite a few former branches. Some may be alternate names or replacement buildings, but the slideshow includes: Vernon, University Park, East Side, Montavilla, Lents, Brooklyn and Lombard (possibly more). Additional research needed here. It would be quite impressive if Wikipedia had articles for each of the current and former branches (assuming enough information warrants an article for each). It would be even more impressive if a Good Topic was constructed from the branch articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good topics?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I see no Oregon-related good topics. If any project members know of a good quality group of articles to promote to good topic status, do share! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. We've got lots of good and featured geographical articles; "Rivers and Streams of Portland, Oregon" ("Watershed of Portland, Oregon") seems like a good start. Then maybe "Cascade Mountains of Oregon", and perhaps "Pioneer history of Oregon" or something like that? --Esprqii (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles must be related, all be of quality status and "complete" the topic. So, there would have to be a parent article about Rivers in Portland of good status, then each of the river articles would also have to be of good status. A concrete example (though it has many related articles) would be the Multnomah County Library article at good status then each of the branch articles at good status. As you can see, many good topics have only a few articles grouped together. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I gotcha. Well, we might consider Willamette River a topic. Finetooth has done a ton on the various tributaries thereof, and there are a bunch of other related topics. Dunno if the topic is "complete" but that one has to be pretty close. --Esprqii (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Central Oregon activity?

A little bird told me there may be interest in hosting a Wikipedia meetup in Central Oregon. Are there any active WikiProject Oregon members in the Bend area? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Around July, the Portland Tribune changed all of its URLs for archived articles, without (at least so far) redirecting the old ones to the new. Although the paper's website says that, "Stories dated prior to 2010 will be available soon in our archival search function", so far, that's not working, and broken URLs cannot be repaired that way. However, I've discovered a much simpler fix: Just replace "www.portlandtribune.com" with "thetribonline.net" (don't forget the the) in any article URL, and it works. I've tried it with about half a dozen so far, even ones as old as 2002, and it has worked every time. (I discovered this only by Googling an article's headline, not from the paper's website.) It's a pain to have to update these links, but at least the Tribune's archived articles are free (as is the paper's print edition), unlike those of Portland's major daily paper, and it appears the Tribune plans to keep most of its previously digitized articles online well into the future, to their credit. SJ Morg (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this and reporting back! Sounds like something that could be fixed pretty easily with a bot, or with AWB. (Makes you wonder how hard it could be for the Trib to fix it on their end, huh?) -Pete (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The Tribune hasn't fixed this problem, but the repair I identified has worked every time. I don't know anything about using AWB or bots, but it would be great if someone offered to add this task to their bot's list of tasks. One issue that would need to be factored into the settings is that any articles published since the Tribune's aforementioned URL change back in July or so still use "portlandtribune.com" and, so far, I haven't come across any of those that have since been changed to "thetribonline.net". So, we wouldn't want a bot to change those, as that would actually break URLs that are working. However, it appears that all of the old addresses had "www" before "portlandtribune.com", whereas none of the new ones does, so it probably would be easy to keep the bot from changing the wrong ones, simply by having it only change the ones that have "www.portlandtribune.com" after the "http://" in citations on WP pages. Is there a bot-owner willing to take this on? SJ Morg (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I've found that this fix also works for repairing broken URLs for all other Pamplin Media Group newspapers, such as the Forest Grove News-Times and the Beaverton Valley Times. All of those links are now broken at their original, localized addresses (such as ones starting with www.forestgrovenewstimes.com), but can be made to work again by substituting "thetribonline.net" (without www). I've been changing some manually, but I'll only catch a small fraction. Are there no bot-owners who'd like to help? SJ Morg (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson Smith

Full disclosure: I am a friend and supporter of Jefferson Smith for Mayor of Portland.

We're in the middle of a very heated campaign.

Someone recently edited Smith's Wikipedia entry in a very heavy-handed way to present the most damaging possible interpretation of some facts that are now known about an incident that occurred at a 1993 fraternity party in Eugene. The edit was structured to create the impression that Smith had beaten a woman, which is not a neutral interpretation of the known facts (under the mistaken impression that he had turned over a sofa she was sleeping on, she attacked him first and he injured her in the course of defending himself. I'm not defending his actions, simply observing that they are different from being guilty of domestic assault).

I reedited the new section to make it more neutral but I think we might be better off to just lock both candidates' pages till after the election.

I would appreciate any assistance, insights, etc. the WikiProject Oregon community can offer.

Thank you. Vardavas (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson Smith got in a fight during a pick up game of basketball at a girls middle school in Portland[1]. That's why he didn't get my vote. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Two additions to the National Register of Historic Places

I went ahead and created stubs for future expansion. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My old dead guy radar went off, so I had to verify that yes, the architect of the RC Golf Clubhouse, Herbert A. Angell, is the brother of long-time Oregon congressman Homer D. Angell. (Brief mention here). --Esprqii (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In case you were wondering what on earth...

Inversion: Plus Minus. (By the way, feel free to copyedit. Also, is there a preferred way to display the plus and minus symbols [see the "sometimes stylized as" part of the lead]?) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Need help editing new notable Oregon resident Milenko Krstić

I added him at Milenko krstic but was not aware of the accent mark until I looked at his daughters page. Could someone change the title to reflect the accent mark? I'm not sure how to do it. Oh and a capital K would be swell too. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done—for future reference, you can click "Move" in the drop-down menu at the top near the page tabs to change a page's name. David1217 What I've done 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So...

Anyone working on anything interesting at the moment these days? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, peer review

Just for anyone who may be interested. Wikipedia:Peer review/Music for a Time of War/archive1. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ramblin Rod

How is Ramblin' Rod low importance? If anything he is mid-importance. That guy was an institution is this town and I am glad to have watched that show in the early 90's. He had his Jacket with all the button; he'd come out on his little fake boat or whatever that was and show Tom and Jerry cartoons. That's all I remember. He was a boss. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the WP:ORE article importance rating guideline? According to that, he would have to have "statewide impact" to be mid-level importance. While he had quite an effect on all kids I know, those whom I have met who were raised in Central and Eastern Oregon do not usually know of him. —EncMstr (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

At least one reference has him being number one in his time slot for the time he was on KPTV. I doubt that KPTV played Ramblin Rod exclusively in the Portland Metro area. Meaning other parts of the state had to have had him. Like Eugene for example PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Then theres Albany giving a Ramblin Rod shoutout. And you could at least be fair and admit that No one lives in Eastern Oregon. That is a very small percentage of them live there. I'm sorry to say but those of us on the Willamette valley speak for the small pockets of life elsewhere in this state. The criteria also speak of "long term impact". I think this should be taken into account since he as on air for like 30 years solid. Looks like a little city called Seattle has heard of him too. I would also like to commend you for not simply pointing to the importance scale criteria and saying I'm wrong. Others have attempted to use this logical fallacy against the forces of reason on here I have noticed. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi PortlandOR, I think we strive to meet a higher standard of reason and civility here in Oregon (I say "here" with a bit of irony I guess, as I'm typing to you from San Francisco) -- glad to see it's appreciated. I'd like to say, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other (sadly I never got to see Ramblin Rod myself), but I do think you make a good case.
However, I think it's worth keeping in mind that these "importance" rankings are really a tiny detail in the grand scheme. The only people likely to ever notice them are those working in this WikiProject, and I think we all know to take them with a grain of salt. They're useful on a large scale, for tracking overall progress (see WP:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment#Statistics) -- but for an individual article, it's often a judgment call and in my opinion, doesn't matter a whole lot which way it comes down.
The thing I am happy to see is your effort to improve the article itself -- an article that was accessed over 800 times in November, surely by people who don't have the slightest idea what a WikiProject is, much less how they go about determining article importance!
Keep up the good work. -Pete (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, 85% of all of the assessed articles for the Oregon project are ranked as low importance, so it's not really a major slight against Rob. Tdslk (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd wager that the 85% marked as low could use a second look. At a glance I noticed Suzanne Bonamici rated as low importance. Given the circumstances around her ascent to her current position I would say she deserves a mid-importance. David Wu's fall from grace was pretty high profile, and going out on a limb I would say articles reveling in this are to be found in Seattle, and around the country. Ones that mention Bonamici that is. Especially in Republican sttrongholds. With that said if an article gets fixed up with the proper citations and what not can they get a second look? Ramblin' Rod isn't some obscure US senator who served for a term. He was on the airwaves for decades and even drew comments from a Seattle paper saying their funny man came first. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
When Ms. Bonamici's bio was assessed, she hadn't even been elected to the state senate, much less the U.S. House. So yeah, there's certainly room for revisiting that assessment. But as a general rule, improvements to an article won't make a difference to the importance of its subject to the state of Oregon.
I think most Wikipedians tend to look more at the quality assessments, than the importance assessments, as a measure of their improvement of articles. There's a fair amount of effort here, for instance, to work articles through the good article peer review process. If you're really interested in the importance measurements, I'm sure there's plenty to do. Looks like there are 10,347 low-importance article to reassess. Enjoy =) -Pete (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You know what, go ahead and do whatever you want, and ignore the advice of the seasoned editors who have been doing this for a long time. Let's waste more time on the importance rating, which as Pete pointed out, doesn't amount to much.(Personal attack removed) Now note, this is note because of some sort of we were here first and respect your elders thing, its just that this is thread is a complete waste of time. Total and absolute waste of time. Please, please take Pete's advice and work on improving the actual article. That is what matters, not the importance rating for one project. Work on content and you will earn respect. Work on collaboration and you might get others to care. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
PortlandOregon97217 also proposed changing importance ratings over at WikiProject Cannabis. PO, I agree with some of the comments above--I would not focus on the importance ratings so much and spend your time making quality contributions to articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Lord have mercy. They are really coming out of the wood work for this one. But thank you for reminding me because I had forgotten about that zinger. That was funny and you know it. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
PO, I would agree with others that the importance ratings aren't really that... important. The best way to raise the profile of the Ramblin' Rob article would be to improve it and take it through the the good article/featured article process, and it would be really awesome if you were to take on that task! (Side note to veteran editors, let's remember to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers.) Tdslk (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Movies: I skimmed what you said and stopped with "and you will earn respect". Huh? I really don't give a hoot what people on the internet think and no one is about to change my agenda :D. I'm aloof. With that said it would be silly of me to poor over 10000 articles. Like how I spotted Bonamici. She was the only name I recognized out of like 200 I skimmed. Things on my radar are all apart of my agenda. And there is alot on my radar. Check my edits for a peek into my madness.

Tdslk. I do realise they aren't important. But my agenda is important... to me :D. Yeah. But I would love for Ramblin Rod to make GA and beyond. I will continue to champion the cause of Ramblin Rod and after awhile hopefully with other interested paries i will start to look like a GA. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oregon legislation template

Hi neighbors, I doubt many of you watch {{Oregon legislation}}, but I had a question about it some of you might want to answer; see Template talk:Oregon legislation#Picture. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I made that navbox, and I'm not really tied to the photo. At the time, I thought it added a bit of color to a somewhat dry topic; but a lot has changed with navboxes since I made it. I wouldn't object to a different picture, or even removing it entirely if you prefer. Thanks, though, for bringing it up for discussion here! -Pete (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington County Libraries

There is an article about Multnomah County Library and many (most?) of its branches, but coverage in Washington County is much spottier. Out in the western 'burbs, the Washington County Cooperative Library System provides several different libraries with coordination and services, including disbursal of tax revenues. Their website lists 14 member libraries, three of which have two branches, for a total of 17 sites. Of these, only one has a stand-alone article in Wikipedia; six others have a brief mention or picture in the associated city or community article and the remaining seven have no Wikipedia presence at all.

  1. Banks Public Library -- No article, not even mentioned in Banks, Oregon
  2. Beaverton City Library (2 branches) -- No article, brief mention in Beaverton, Oregon pic Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  3. Cedar Mill Community Library (2 branches) -- No article, brief mention in Cedar Mill, Oregon, including pic in infobox
  4. Cornelius Public Library -- No article, not even mentioned in Cornelius, Oregon Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  5. Forest Grove City Library -- No article, not even mentioned in Forest Grove, Oregon Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  6. Garden Home Community Library -- No article, not even mentioned in Garden Home-Whitford, Oregon
  7. Hillsboro Public Library (2 branches) -- Stand-alone article and brief mention in Hillsboro, Oregon
  8. North Plains Public Library -- No article, not even mentioned in North Plains, Oregon except pic and external link
  9. Oregon College of Art & Craft Library -- No article, brief. mention in Oregon College of Art & Craft
  10. Sherwood Public Library -- No article, not even mentioned in Sherwood, Oregon except pic Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  11. Tigard Public Library -- No article, not even mentioned in Tigard, Oregon (CREATED. --Another Believer (Talk) 13:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
  12. Tualatin Public Library -- No article, not even mentioned in Tualatin, Oregon (CREATED. --Another Believer (Talk) 13:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
  13. Tuality Health Resource Center -- No article, not even mentioned in Tuality Healthcare nor Tuality Community Hospital
  14. West Slope Community Library -- No article, not even mentioned in West Slope, Oregon

This came to my attention when new user Aussiefm recently created Aloha Community Library, a new community library which aspires to eventually become a full-fledged member of the WCCLS. I proposed merging the library article into Aloha, Oregon, but this begs the larger question about what to do with the other libraries in the county. I propose that we expand the existing coverage so that there is a brief mention of every library in the appropriate city or community article. I think there should also be an article about Washington County Cooperative Library Services or Washington County, Oregon libraries. This seems to follow the pattern in Library Information Network of Clackamas County. From there the coverage could be expanded either by adding sections to this article about each library, or else a stub could be created for each of the individual libraries. The latter would follow the pattern established in the big city.

On a related note, it might be good to reach out to User_talk:Aussiefm in hopes of encouraging ongoing participation in the WP community beyond the two articles created today, one of which was speedy deleted. YBG (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. To get the ball rolling, I created Washington County Cooperative Library Services. --Another Believer (Talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: I also created Category:Washington County Cooperative Library Services. Articles created for partner libraries can be included here. Also created Tigard Public Library and Tualatin Public Library. --Another Believer (Talk) 12:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Cool! We should take on the libraries in the Clack. We have a nice start on Library Information Network of Clackamas County, and then there are the branches:
  1. Canby Public Library: no article, brief mention in Canby, Oregon
  2. Sunnyside Library: operated by county, not mentioned in Sunnyside, Oregon
  3. Oak Lodge branch: operated by county, brief mention in Oak Grove, Oregon
  4. Estacada Public Library: no article, brief mention in Estacada, Oregon
  5. Gladstone Public Library: no article, some coverage and picture in Gladstone, Oregon
  6. Lake Oswego Public Library: no article, some coverage in Lake Oswego, Oregon
  7. Ledding Library of Milwaukie: no article, brief mention in Milwaukie, Oregon
  8. Molalla Public Library: no article, brief mention in Molalla, Oregon
  9. Oregon City Public Library: no article, brief mention in Oregon City, Oregon
  10. Sandy Public Library (2 branches): no article, no mention in Sandy, Oregon
  11. West Linn Public Library: no article, brief mention in West Linn, Oregon
  12. Wilsonville Public Library: nice B-class article (thanks to Aboutmovies)!
I might try to get to some of these, but I said the same thing about the bottoms (above), so don't wait for me! --Esprqii (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I can help much with article writing at the moment, but I can see about pictures for those that do not already have them for those in WaCo. But for those who accept the challenge, if you look at "my" Wilsonville and Hillsboro ones you will see links to statistics kept by the state that can help expand the articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Cascadia

There has been a little bit of activity at the Wikimedia Cascadia page at Meta, along with its associated talk page. If you have any thoughts on this proposed organization, I am all ears (as I know others are as well). Feedback? Interest? Questions? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would really love to hear from WikiProject Oregon members. Do you follow chapter/Foundation news and projects? Is there any interest in participating in a regional chapter? I would appreciate any feedback, positive or negative, either here or on the Wikimedia Cascadia page at meta. The more active Wikipedians we have participating in these discussions, the better the community can determine which actions should and should not be taken.
Personally, I am very interested in a regional chapter, though I still have many questions and recognize that it takes an active network of dedicated participants to keep an organization running. What are the benefits of forming an organization? What are the problems?
Right now I am spending a lot of time working on this proposal because I think it should at least be considered by the community. Many nations have their own chapter. The United States does not have an official chapter. Currently, the proposed chapter would include British Columbia and as far south in the US as San Francisco (the Cascadia bioregion). There are a handful of people participating in the discussions at meta, and we have requested a Cascadia mailing list, but right now feedback from more people would be helpful. Thank you for your consideration.
(By the way, I should note that I am not canvassing nor am I asking for your support. I am genuinely seeking feedback of any sort. Hate the idea of the chapter? Hate the name? Love it? Can you think of any projects? Any thoughts are appreciated. One purpose of the chapter is to help organize events. I created this Events page to offer project descriptions and archive past meetup pages--if you see a Portland event missing, do say! Also, this page might come in handy if you need additional context. Thanks!) --Another Believer (Talk) 16:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington County Public Affairs Forum

... was recently created by Aussiefm, but then speedy deleted. Aussie protested the speedy deletion, but admitted a WP:COI while trying to invalidate copyright concerns. All that aside, it seems to me that the Forum might well be notable. Sure, it's not as old or as well known as its big city cousin. I've never attended any of the meetings, but have heard announcements about a wide variety of topics in many different arenas. I mainly concentrate on minor editing tweaks and haven't really created many articles, but I'm wondering what others might think. If this article were to be resurrected, it help deflect help Aussie feel a bit less bitten. YBG (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a worthy welcome for a newcomer. I don't know anything about the Washington County Public Affairs Forum but will try to pitch in if you carry this forward. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Note, I took a closer look, and here's what I found. The article was deleted for two reasons: (1) lack of an assertion of importance, and (2) unambiguous copyright violation. I don't see where Aussiefm asserted that he's the original author of the text, but it may be so; but it should be possible to start an article without having to resolve that first.
From a brief Google News search, these two Oregonian mentions might help to establish notability, though they're probably not enough on their own: [1] [blog.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2010/02/volunteer_opportunities_abound.html] The earliest mention I found in the Oregonian was from 1960, when then-Treasurer Howard Belton addressed the Forum. As with similar organizations, searching for articles about the org is difficult, since newspaper searches turn up so many announcements of small events at the organization. I am not convinced of its notability from what I've found so far, but would not be surprised if better sources exist. I'm just having trouble finding them. -Pete (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Improving the GNIS

Regarding the GNIS, it's easy to ask the people there to make a correction. At the bottom of GNIS entries like https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/1120623 for Fanno Creek, for example, you will find this e-mail address: gnis_manager@usgs.gov. Write a polite e-mail explaining what you think is incorrect and how it should be fixed. I've done this a couple of times when I've noticed errors in a GNIS entry. I've always gotten helpful replies to my queries, and any GNIS errors I've pointed out have been fixed. My impression is that the people at GNIS appreciate help from the public. I didn't imagine it could be this straightforward until some years ago User:EncMstr enlightened me. Finetooth (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I'll do that. I didn't see the link, and my brief Google search led me to some 1997 PDF detailing how to write a letter...and then I stopped. --Esprqii (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Aw, cmon Esprq…don't you have a quill pen and a bottle of ink lying around somewhere? =) Seriously though, I love this stuff…Wikipedians helping to make the rest of the 'net work better. Seems…blogworthy. -Pete (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You can also ask them to add items. Such as this park. You just need to provide them a source or two that it exists, and I think the coords. If I recall, Wikipedia works as a source for them. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Sample of what I previously sent in, and that they then used:
These Portland, Oregon parks are not yet in the database: 
  
Directors Park (officially Simon and Helen Director Park) 
http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/finder/index.cfm?action=ViewPark&PropertyID=1335 
45°31'7"N   122°40'53"W 
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/04/curbless_design_sought_for_new.html 
http://www.katu.com/news/53744942.html 
  
  
Tanner Springs Park 
http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/finder/index.cfm?action=ViewPark&PropertyID=1273 
45°31'52"N   122°40'54"W 
Long -122.68191   Lat 45.53117 
http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/finder/index.cfm?action=ViewMap&PropertyID=1273 
http://www.portlandtribune.com/neighborhoods/story.php?story_id=118005334756427300
So it doesn't take much. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Clackamas shooting

Worthy of an article? See WP:NOTNEWS. I am sure enough sources could be found to justify an article, especially since the event is receiving national coverage, but I could argue the other way as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What a sad event. Notability-wise: if there is lasting coverage (i.e. gun laws repercussions), then keep it separate. Otherwise, merge it with the Clackamas Town Center article. David1217 What I've done 03:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
See Clackamas Town Center Shooting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clackamas Town Center Shooting. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Given today's shooting, it looks like the tide has changed and the article will be kept for the time being (I am making an assumption here). If I lived near the Town Center I would take a couple photographs of the memorial outside. Anyone nearby? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I took a photo. It could probably have been better cropped, but oh well. I feel slightly hypocritical because I voted for deletion (think it's WP:TOOSOON) but anyway, it is at least illustrated. --Esprqii (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Looks great. You are not hypocritical... you are just improving Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and not to worry, my slight hypocrisy was also quite short-lived! --Esprqii (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised the deletion discussion has not closed yet. There is clearly consensus to keep the article at this point. Now just to get to Good article status... collaboration of the week any length of time? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been almost, but not quite, 7 days, which is the recommended minimum for a deletion debate. While it's possible for an AfD to be closed early as a WP:SNOWBALL, in this case that would mean disregarding or dismissing several arguments based in policy. I suspect it will be closed in the next day or so. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I forgot about the 7-day recommendation--I often see AfDs close in much less time. Thanks for the reminder. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A source for info about 19th century state gov't

Just wanted to leave a quick note, I just found this 1899 book produced by the Oregon Secretary of State. If you've perused the lists of old legislators on the Oregon State Archives site, you will find this pretty familiar; seems to me we might want to start adding this in as a source to the various articles that cite those pages, as it's better information for the reader about where the recorded information originated. -Pete (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kincaid, Harrison Rittenhouse (1899). Political and Official History and Register of Oregon from the year 1823 to 1899.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

I was looking through the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System's directory of all Oregon's (and other states') Wild and Scenic streams, and I noticed so many of them don't have photos. I've already contacted them about some Klamath River ones that they could use and wanted to show them some of the North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River that I took, but their link is broken. But it might be fun to supply them with lots of other river pictures by WP:ORE participants. (I know Finetooth and Little Mountain 5 have many that the site would like.) Jsayre64 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Wild River people would appreciate that. One note of caution: I sent an e-mail to them a few weeks ago with a link to an image I'd added to Lostine River. I got a thank you, but the respondent pointed out that my photo illustrated a part of the river that was outside the Wild and Scenic section and therefore was not suitable for their purposes. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oof, that's too bad. But we still definitely have a lot of photos that would work. I'll look for some. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Importance adjustments based on objective criteria for broader categories

Given the above, which will not be mention beyond this sentence, Pete and another editor mentioned the current breakdown. I went in and added my historical data on the topic (see here). Given the explosion in articles, many of little note, over the last 5 years, some adjustment I think is in order. What I don't personally want to do is pick individual articles and opine as to the merits of each. Instead, I propose a few broader adjustments based on classifications and objective data. For instance, some may recall a few years ago the discussion on the topic of importance of school districts. At that time the consensus was to make the top 10 districts mid, and everything else low.

  • My suggested change would be that any SD with 10k students or more be bumped to High (Portland, Salem, Beaverton, Hillsboro, N. Clackamas, Eugene, Bend, Tig/Tual, Medford, Gresham, Reynolds, Springfield, and David Douglas), plus the largest bumped to Top. Then, any district with more than 5k would be bumped to Mid (Albany, WL/Wilsonvile, Oregon City, Redmond, Lake O, Corvallis, McMinnville, Centennial, Douglas County, Klamath County, Forest Grove, Grants Pass, Bethel, Woodburn, Newberg, Hermiston, Lincoln Co, and Three Rivers).
  • Colleges (I personally want to avoid pre-college schools as enrollment figures change and can be difficult to find for private schools): Top 3 4-years schools by enrollment and oldest to Top. Any other 4-year with 2500 students or more (total students including graduate students) to High. All other 4-year to Mid, as well as all professional schools that have split-off articles (pharm, med, dental, law, business, journalism, etc.). Community colleges stay low, except bump those with enrollments over 5k to Mid, over 10k to High.
  • Next are settlements. My proposal would simply bump top 5 cities to Top; county seats to High, and then all other incorporated cities to Mid. That should bump a lot of them up, which given an explosion in articles on unincorporated communities, seems to be needed.
  • Roads: All mainline interstates to Top, all intestate spurs to High. All US signed routes to High. Then same as before, base it on the geographical criteria, as in low if the road is only in one county. Also, if we can find stats, boost any of the top 10 busiest roads/freeways to High if not already there.
  • Lastly, companies. Any Fortune 500 company to Top along with 5 largest employers (business or non-profit employers, not government). Then any Fortune 1000 companies to High; any company with annual revenues of $200 million and up or listed on the NASDAQ/NYSE bumped to Mid.

Feel free to comment, and to propose tweeks or even other possible changes for groups that you can think of. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting some thought into this. I agree that with 85% of Oregon articles currently at "low" importance, and since the target was that 55% would be "low," it's a good idea to adjust the criteria. Your suggestions generally look good; my only observation is that, from the categories originally listed on the assessment scheme, you haven't proposed any adjustment to "people" or "events." Should we maybe adjust those as well? -Pete (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
{Sheesh Pete, I was proposing biography tweaks when you conflicted my edit) We are definitely too weighted towards Low with not enough in the Mid and High range. We took a conservative approach that I think was appropriate at the time, and your adjustments sound good. Another big area we should look at is biographies.
  • Let's bump all governors to High. I don't think we need the also serving in federal roles distinction to bump them up higher; if they have served distinctively in either capacity (Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall), bump to Top.
  • Anyone who served in a federal job should be bumped up to Mid. This would include U.S. Representatives, cabinet officers, judges, and so on. Bump up long-serving members or those serving in leadership roles (Peter DeFazio, Al Ullman) to High.
  • Leave state level politicians Low, unless they have been leaders.
  • The pioneer standards look good as they are, but there are probably some that have been under-rated.
  • Athletes and sports figures: the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame is still a good standard for moving them to Mid, but since the hall of fame tends to lag current events, it's probably worthwhile to look at current sports figures who are recognized nationally as leaders. For example, LaMarcus Aldridge and Chip Kelly. We have to be careful of recentism here (i.e., a week of national attention isn't enough--it needs to be lasting).
  • We don't have a standard for entertainment/entertainers but probably should develop one. The local=Low/statewide=Mid/national=High standard doesn't really work for these since there aren't many "statewide" only entertainers in this modern world. For example, is Grimm (TV series) High simply because it's a national show filmed here? That doesn't seem quite right, but it's probably a Mid rather than a Low. Same for Ty Burrell, an Oregon native and UO grad who won an Emmy on a top-rated national TV series. So perhaps the standard is more along the lines of: statewide recognition brought by national exposure=Mid; national recognition itself=High.
Glad we're looking at this in a systematic way! --Esprqii (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha Esprqii, great minds think alike, of course! I like your additions. U.S. Senators are left out; I'd suggest we treat them the same as Governors. (Though, perhaps if they didn't serve a full term, "high" might be a little too much?)
One thing to be mindful of, with a systematic approach, is that we're giving a lot of weight to people and topics that are neatly categorized, perhaps at the expense of more unique notables. If this injects a bias, for instance, of politics over culture, that wouldn't be a good thing. This actually brings me back to Ramblin' Rod Anders, who seems more and more like a compelling example of what we're missing. His career spanned 30 years, his show touched pretty much every kid in the Willamette Valley, he's probably better remembered than, say, Vic Atiyeh. But careers like that are tricky to categorize. Another example would be Abigail Scott Duniway, who never held (neatly categorizable) elected office, but had a tremendous impact on the state both through her writing and her political advocacy. We don't even have a bio for Lon Mabon. None of this suggests any specific changes to me, but I think it's something we need to keep in mind as we make this kind of adjustment. -Pete (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant to lump Senators in with Representatives (anyone who served in a federal job; I should specify elected to a federal job--even though I love my local postmaster).
While there are always exceptions and edge cases and I'm not suggesting we get all doctrinaire about it all, I'd kind of agree with AM that we should have guidelines; that's why I was suggesting some entertainment guidelines, specifically for the Ramblin' Rod case for which we had no real guidelines. Duniway still managed to get rated Mid (which is probably too low), so I think people are applying some standards. I would point out that Rusty Nails is rated a Mid, probably due to his Krusty the Clown inspiration. Your move, Ramblin' Rod. --Esprqii (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing on the general point Esprqii, just…well, maybe just babbling. I read a fascinating journal article recently (can't remember enough to dig it up) that talked about how Wikipedia's obsession with recounting history in fairly strict chronological order led to significant biases -- for instance, relatively inconsequential political leaders were receiving undue weight relative to their influence. I don't think there's a straightforward solution, but I think it's something to keep in mind.
On that note, about senators -- what I'm suggesting is that they generally be a notch higher than reps, because their influence is prima facie statewide, and their terms are three times longer. Of course, one might question whether someone like Alexander G. Barry should be ranked as "high importance" on the merits of his brief tenure in the Senate. I think an exception for senators and governors who didn't serve complete terms might be worthwhile, nudging them back down to "mid" unless there are other factors. -Pete (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that many of the federal leaders have been pretty insignificant, like Barry, as you mention; though he looks rather dashing, for which he should be rated higher. We also have such silly reps as George Augustus La Dow who couldn't even be bothered to live long enough to actually serve after being elected. However, I would argue that their election to such a unique position is probably enough to elevate them to Mid, even if they were "regarded as the most inconsequential congressman ever sent to Washington from Oregon" or look kinda creepy. --Esprqii (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Sadly, Shiel (the inconsequential guy above) was out of office before 1865; I would have loved to have seen a tour de force portrayal of his jerkiness in Lincoln. Our actual rep at the time wasn't even mentioned in the roll call in the movie. --Esprqii (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The only reason I had not proposed any bio adjustments was because I couldn't come up with a good system (which Esprqii has some good thoughts on), and I didn't want it too much of a subjective opinion issue. After all, bios are likely the largest single set of articles, and thus any changes there would have the biggest impact. To which, I was personally thinking maybe a few smaller adjustments such as those I put out and other proposals I was hoping we would get could get implemented and then see where we are at. Then maybe some more impactful changes. Plus, and I vaguely recall saying something to this effect in one of the prior similar debates, some of the articles likely need to be reevaluated based on the expansion of the article or the subject has just accomplished more since it was first done (I think Esprqii was also getting at this above).
Otherwise, I think the broad concepts and generalities first laid out for bios remain largely sound. That said, Congresspeople should all be bumped to Mid, if nothing else for the fact that compared to state legislators you are looking at something like 10x as many people represented in a Congressional district than a state reps district. For US Senators, I'm not yet sold on High for all, as while they are statewide and have longer terms, I just see them as less influential on the state as a whole compared to state government leaders. I think we can all see the long-term impacts of Hatfield, McNary, but I don't see that as of yet to say Packwood (infamous yes, but how many buildings are named after him), Gordon Smith, Merkley, and really even Wyden. Not that the later two can't improve their legacy, and not that there are any particular tarnishes on their records, but what long-term benefits can you name off the top of your head have they brought in?
For entertainment folks, perhaps something like this: Top 40 song on some recognized chart (the music project has a list as part of their notability guidelines) or a nomination to a major award (Oscar, GRAMMY, Golden Globe, MTV, Tony, etc.) gets you bumped to Mid, major award winner to High, and number 1 single or multiple major award winner or induction into a hall of fame gets you to Top. For writers, winners of major awards (Pulitzer, Caldicott, and other national awards) bump to High. Statewide award winners get you Mid.
One more for politicians: Mayors of cities with 100,000+ bump to Mid. That should be four cities for now, and the potential for a few more in the next decade. Plus, a large chunk are likely already at that level or higher due to other offices held/not many articles on such outside of PDX. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You keep dropping Governor Creepy in. It's like the goatse.cx of WP:ORE.

How about this, attempting to summarize the ideas we've discussed:

  1. Governors and U.S. Senators will typically be "high" importance.
  2. U.S. Representatives, Secretaries of State, and Treasurers will typically be "mid" importance.
  • Chairing a committee, or receiving sustained national (#1) or statewide (#2) media coverage will typically result in a higher importance ranking.
  • Serving less than a full term will typically result in a lower importance ranking.

How's that sound? -Pete (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Raising Congress people to mid-sounds grand. Lets take the case of Bonamici. She won a special election to be congress person. Ok great. That already would make her at least borderline Mids. Then maybe she loses the general election and fades into obscurity. Then she can be a low. But she won the general election. So the woman has won two elections. Moving US senators to at least high seems the thing to do. Especially when you think that these people are rubbing elbow with the elite in this country and even the world. It seems like there should be exceptions for people who didnt serve full terms. But what if they quit amid a media whirlwind? Or a mitigating circumsance like a jail term? One needs only to look at Illinois for guidance XD. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick note before I sack out: Aboutmovies, I didn't intentionally ignore your long post re: bio's, I somehow overlooked it. I will come back and take another look with fresh eyes. -Pete (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
@Aboutmovies, addressing your edit-conflicted message: you make a number of good points. Overall, it seems better to make a bold change than an incremental one, because I'm sure none of us wants to revisit this any time soon. But your specific points are reasonable.
About U.S. Senators, a few points in favor of high importance. The general point being that while the name might not be tied to the impact in the public's mind, the impact exists.
  • Senators have an ability to unify leaders in the state and region behind broad policy objectives that is substantially greater than House members. A specific example is the O&C timber payments issue. Wyden, Merkley, and Smith (in that order, I think) have all had an impact on how that issue has played out in the U.S. Congress, and the impacts of the issue affect a substantial portion of the economy and population of the state (whether or not, say, a logger in Josephine County knows anything about a given senator's involvement). Though House members have of course been involved as well, they have not been cited as leaders to the same degree as senators, as they don't generally have the same ability to galvanize the region in backing a certain policy objective.
  • Almost without exception, every senator has at least one statewide, strongly contested race. The campaign impacts public discourse (TV ads, newspaper coverage, civic discussions, etc.) about politics and policy, at least in that election cycle; the Senate does not have gerrymandered districts that limit the reach or breadth of the discussion. In many cases these races will impact turnout, and therefore downticket races.
  • On the national stage, a Senator has a greater impact on the rest of the country's perception of the state than a House member. A Senator is understood to represent more than a single district, and and the length of their terms means it's more likely their name will be known over time.
I see a substantial difference in the statewide impact of a Congressman vs. a Senator, and less of a difference between a Senator and a Governor. Given that the numbers are so heavily skewed toward the low end of the importance scale, I would be inclined to push Senators up to "high." -Pete (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree, or agree. I'm more Switzerland on the Senators. I was thinking about Merkley when I wrote the above, and the only thing that came to mind was the rural counties and timber payments issue he worked on. For me, that actually kept it at Mid since that program was a temporary fix, not some sort of long-lasting legacy. And I agree they are a step up from Reps, but I just don't know if I think they merit High for WPORE purposes. I don't oppose it, I just don't agree with it. Given the above, it seems the consensus so far would be High.
As to bold changes, I disagree, as I hate it enough as it is with our political system doing the same thing, making extreme changes, and then the other faction rises up and goes too far to the other side of the spectrum. Much like alcohol, things are often done best in moderation if you want to survive long-term. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we're in much disagreement about bold changes, it's just a matter of degree. I'm not suggesting we should overcorrect, just that we shouldn't leave adjustments out for the sake of moving very incrementally. I don't think it's a good idea to change the standards very often. -Pete (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a good thing that Wikipedia isn't the Politcal System. Its easier to beg forgiveness than ask for permission. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Anders discussion

Extended content

Movies: I have a question for you. In reference to statewide if you garnered the highest ratings in your time-slot and were on the air for 30 years would that put you in mid or high?PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to discuss Anders. But, your questions needs qualifiers. What is the market, and what is the time slot? Not all markets are created equally (NYC is a lot different of an impact than say Medford), and not all time slots are the same. Prime time is a lot more faces than 2 am or even mid-morning or the 4 pm slot. KATU had the number one news shows for many years with Jeff Gianola and Julie Emry, but I don't place them in Mid despite Gianola's cameo in The Hunted. And I am pretty sure the 5 pm newscasts for an ABC affiliate are significantly higher than whatever slot Anders was in (I watched him as a kid, but other than before school I don't recall the exact time of the show). Plus during most of Anders' run, KPTV was an independent station, and the later part of his run was when FOX was a distant fourth in the ratings. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You can't bring up NYC in a conversation that is about impact on the state of Oregon. Yes. He was on PORTLAND TV. The biggest city in Oregon. The NYC of Oregon if you will. Also: While I dont recall know for sure, Im pretty sure there wasn't a Jeff Gianola show on the air for 33 years. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You missed the points. You asked a question that did not have specifics, so I tried to tell you and get you to think critically about it. AS in the market size matters, and so too does a time slot. While many of us fondly remember the smile contest and the boat, I also fondly remember my third grade teacher Mrs. Moore who probably taught for 30+ years and had a huge impact on hundreds if not thousands of lives, far more than say a man introducing cartoons to basically small kids at 7 am or so in the morning. Next, you did not even attempt to address the time slot item. Then, no there was not a Jeff Gianola show, nor was it on for 30 years (though I think he may have also hosted Town Hall at some point), but neither was there a Rod Anders show, nor one on for 30 years. I assume you know the show started out under a different name, and never took on his full name. But if you want a better comparison for years, Jim Bosley was on for 35 years or so, and just taking into account the evening newscasts, probably had as much camera time each day as Anders. He then also hosted AM Northwest for years. But he doesn't jump out to me as that particularly important in the long term. Like Anders, The Boz was beloved and certainly was famous in the Portland market and the general region for decades. But he was also just a weatherman. Now, taking in his hosting of the Miss Oregon pageant and maybe we bump him up. But none of them measure up to the much broader impact of say Matt Groening or others who have attained notability beyond the land of Portlandia. To me (and disclaimer, I wrote the original criteria) the criteria has always primarily been a two-part analysis. 1) how much of the state does this article impact; and 2) how deep of an impact does the topic make. For the former, it can be a physical presence such as a river flowing through 5 counties versus one that flows through two, or for people, are we talking about those who have a statewide impact, or just one region. For the second part, you look at how big of an impact does the topic have and how long lasting are the effects. Such as Measure 37's impact fading greatly after Measure 49 gutted it a few years later, would mean that if 37 was its own article, it might be difficult to sustain anything other than Low if viewed in 2025 when it is a distant memory and basically no longer effects anything. And then part of that equation on the depth of the impact is just that, depth: does the topic effect everyone in a fundamental way, or a small group in a small way, or some combination in between? The more people you impact and in a fundamental way, to me means a higher importance. Such as, I love sports, but their impact on my daily life is far less than what the government decides to do with my taxes. Sports could disappear and I think I'd do fine, but if you decide to get rid of the water distribution system I might have some problems. Get rid of TV and I can pick up a book, but get rid of electricity and the shit hits the fan until we re-adjust to ice boxes and candles and no microwaves. People in other countries riot and protest for democracy and better government or freedoms, but I don't think any government has been overthrown for allowing bad TV on the airwaves. So to me, Anders certainly had a long impact, but not particularly deep. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Again: your elementary school teacher was not on tv for 30+ years. Damn the market size. Portland is the market in Oregon. And if it is important to Portland it is important to Oregon by default. Or at least it should be at least mids. There was also citations from eugene. Thats not apart of Portland. Then the mention in Seattle. Maybe he was of low importance on the west coast as a whole, but being on TV for 30+ years and having an actual legacy that people write about; he is mid if not high now that I think about it. And your points were easily missed because they were WEAK, structurally that is. Due to no fault of your own. I do however think there is some anti-Ramblin-Rod bias in the air >.> <.< >.> Why would anyone have anything against Ramblin' Rod/Button-man? Oh and his obituary made the AP[2].PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Again"? Sorry, but I don't recall bringing up a teacher before. And if you think that the impact as measured by the number of viewers is weak, then we are done. Not only does that contradict part of your original argument (#1 in his time slot), but it misses the point as to what importance is. I don't see any anti-Rod sentiment. In fact, I do not believe anyone here has said he must remain Low. But if you now think Anders should be High (why not Top), then we certainly need to bump Jim Spagg up to Mid, after all he was on for 11 years and might have been #1 in his time slot and even ran for mayor. So keep bringing up trivial mentions of Anders in Seattle, Eugene (Bend and Boise might have something too), here and elsewhere if you like. But when the discussion degenerates into "WEAK" and conspiracy theories, I'm done. I see enough conspiracy theories at work, but at least there the judges tend to agree with what I write. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
", I also fondly remember my third grade teacher Mrs. Moore who probably taught for 30+ years and had a huge impact on hundreds if not thousands of lives, far more than say a man introducing cartoons"... You did mention your teacher. I didn't tell you to. But you did. Judges? Yeah I felt the arguement degenerated by around the time you flew off the handle. Then mentioned NYC and your elementary school teacher. And You have misconstrued what I have said in regards to you believing I have contradicted myself by saying that the impact as measured by views is weak. When did I say that? never you have imagined this. I said that the impact of the viewers in at least the Willamette Valley (which for all intents and purposes is OREGON. and at the least the majority of the population)makes him at least mid because of his tv longevity.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, could I request that if you want to continue ramblin' bout Ramblin' Rod, that you take it to his article's talk page? Or, maybe to your own, as I'm not sure this lengthy discussion even has anything to do with improving the article? -Pete (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

It seems to me we have consensus here. I don't think any of us feel really strongly about the specific points we were debating, but it seems we have a pretty strong consensus to do something along these lines. I'd suggest that Aboutmovies go ahead and change the standards as you see fit, however you best interpret the outcomes of this discussion. Sound good?

Once we have this encoded, I'm happy to fire up AWB and take a crack at some of the more consistently categorized ones. -Pete (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine. One more I just thought of: buildings. Outside of NRHP ones, tallest to Top, top ten to High, anything over 200 feet to Mid. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a good area to include this category, but those rankings seem a bit high to me. For example, I think your new scheme would promote the PacWest Center, whose name I had never heard before just now reviewing List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon, from "low" up two notches to "high" (it's the 4th tallest in Portland, and I'd guess easily on the top 10 list for the state). Do tall buildings really have a strong long-term impact on the state? -Pete (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Concur that we should publish the consensus changes and begin reassessing as needed.
Regarding the buildings, I do think "bigger is notabler" but I don't think that's the only standard. What is the default proposal about NRHP buildings? ::--Esprqii (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Pete, you call yourself an Oregonian? Or at least used too and were in the Portland area and didn't know about the silky-smooth PacWest Center? But in all seriousness, we could cut it to top 5, but the PacWest Center would still make the cut. As it is now, we have about 30 "high rises" in WPORE, but there are quite a few notables out there to write, and plenty of more projects on the drawing boards or even under construction. For better or worse, skylines dominate, and skylines are dominated by the skyscrapers. As to impact, you see them every day towering over all us peons, and from an economic standpoint they cost a lot to build and house hundreds of mostly workers each (and who knows how many spiders). Though looking at the tallest in PDX list, and it might be better to up the "Mid" entry level to 250 feet.
Esprqii, as to NRHP, I believe the default was Low, just because so many of them are really just old houses. Does anyone really think Dayton is that historic? I think they just got together and learned the system and nominated the whole damn town and then changed their street grid to make it impossible for later Wikipedians to try and take pictures of the homes. Not that I'm bitter. Anyway, we then went with any NHL as Mid, and I think there is a underlying understanding that if there are other factors in play, then we could bump it up. For instance nothing in Hillsboro on the NRHP should be Mid (except perhaps the Rock Museum since it is a combo article), but Waller Hall at Willamette is like "the oldest university building west of the Mississippi", so perhaps it could be bumped to Mid. Same with Crater Lake, there are a bunch of individual items, but I would gander only the Lodge and Rim Drive should be above Low. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Oregonian. YOu know, the kind of guy who's always looking at his shoes trying to keep the rain out of his eyes. Makes it hard to notice tall buildings I guess. Anyway, I trust your judgment on this, what you say makes sense. -Pete (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think I have finished updating the importance rules. I came up with a few other minor ones as well. Anyway, please take a look and make sure I didn't miss anything, or if you think the ones I boldly added need tweaking/removing. Then, other than the last two updates I also have gone through the articles and updated them.
Through those updates, we stand at: .57%/2.31%/14.95%/82.16%. Or about a 3% change. I have a feeling the people changes will get us around a 10% change, which would mean around 72% in Low. So the last proposal at the moment would also to simply be a change in our "goal" (which I just pulled out of thin air to begin with) to say 1/10/25/65. That's basically 2/3rds in Low, which to me seems more realistic. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks great! Nice work (as usual). —EncMstr (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.katu.com/politics/Portland-Mayoral-candidate-Jefferson-Smith-apologizes-for-punching-player-during-pickup-game-161534115.html
  2. ^ http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2002/Obituaries-in-the-News/id-7906ce20c33a6440aad0b25bbf2ec5fc
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon/Archive_20&oldid=1144343476"